About the Project

There has been considerable
press comment on the possibility of a hung parliament after the next
general election. A new report by the Constitution Unit and the
Institute for Government considers the implications for MPs, Whitehall
and the general public. It concludes that Westminster and Whitehall are
unprepared, and that minority government is more likely than coalition.
“We are seriously underprepared
for the possibility of a hung parliament after the next election,”
warns Sir Michael Bichard, Executive Director of the Institute for
Government. “Westminster and the wider public traditionally perceive minority government as weak, short and unstable, but it need not be that way.”
The report, Making Minority Government Work, shows how minority government can work effectively in the interests of good government and a stronger Parliament. It
draws on lessons from New Zealand and Canada - and from the SNP
minority government in Scotland. “Minority government could work at
Westminster too,” says Professor Robert Hazell. “But everyone would
need to raise their game – government, the parties, the civil service
and the media.”
Making Minority Government Work (105 pp.) was published in December 2009 and
is the output of a 9-month comparative study based on an extensive
analysis of secondary literature, parliamentary proceedings, government
documents and media coverage complemented by a series of interviews
with government officials, academics and commentators from the four
political systems examined.
The main lessons from the report include:

After the
election, all concerned must be prepared for a longer than usual period
of government formation while the parties negotiate. In the interim Gordon Brown remains Prime Minister, leading a caretaker government.

The parties should prepare before the election for negotiations immediately afterwards, with negotiating teams and plans ready.

The
civil service must be prepared to facilitate the negotiations on behalf
of all parties involved, not just the outgoing government.

The
parties and the civil service should be prepared for many different
combinations of minority and/or coalition government; and (potentially)
for a relaxation of collective cabinet responsibility.

Support
parties (such as the Liberal Democrats) should consider supply and
confidence agreements, instead of coalition, to help them preserve
their distinct identity.

It is difficult to co-ordinate ‘the opposition’ against the government, or to bring the government down. Opposition parties can influence government policy through bilateral deals.

Minority
government has some advantages over coalition: single party control,
greater policy coherence, quicker decision making within the executive.

But a minority government cannot govern in a majoritarian way. It must accept the likelihood of frequent parliamentary defeats, and prepare the media and the public for them.

The Monarch must not be embroiled in government formation. Clearer
rules are needed to explain that it is not the Queen’s role to form a
government, or to facilitate negotiations. The decisions to form a
government must be arrived at by politicians. The Prime Minister then advises the Queen which party leader commands the confidence of Parliament.

Parliament
can become stronger under minority government, but cannot make policy.
The volume of legislation is unlikely to diminish, but Parliament may
take longer to pass bills, and amend them more heavily

Parliamentary reform will not happen, even in a hung Parliament, without a clear agenda and champion who can make it happen.

The
media play a key role in explaining the British parliamentary system
and how governments are formed and dissolved. They shape public
perceptions about minority government, and may distort them. For the
public, minority government is more transparent and accountable than
coalition government.

Further Reading:

Cabinet Office

Submission to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee 10 October 2010